From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Apr 5 09:14:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA17144 for smp-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.webspan.net (mail.webspan.net [206.154.70.7]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA17137 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:14:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from orion.webspan.net (orion.webspan.net [206.154.70.5]) by mail.webspan.net (WEBSPAN/970116) with ESMTP id MAA09013; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from orion.webspan.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.webspan.net (WEBSPN/970116) with ESMTP id MAA12970; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:13:41 -0500 (EST) To: Peter Wemm cc: cr@jcmax.com (Cyrus Rahman), smp@freebsd.org From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: Questions about mp_lock In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:04:44 +0800." <199704051704.BAA18422@spinner.DIALix.COM> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 12:13:41 -0500 Message-ID: <12968.860260421@orion.webspan.net> Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Peter Wemm wrote in message ID <199704051704.BAA18422@spinner.DIALix.COM>: > Moving the kernel locking up a layer and having a seperate entry/exit lock > in the trap/syscall/interupt area would be a major win without too much > cost. What we'd gain by that would be that we could then gradually move > to a per-subsystem locking system perhaps based initially on which syscall > or trap type. It'd be quite possible to have one cpu in the kernel doing > IP checksumming on a packet, another in the vfs system somewhere, another > doing some copy-on-write page copies in the vm system and so on. Things > like getpid() would need no locking whatsoever. But that's for later once > the basics are working. Question if you would: define`basics'? Thanks, Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info